[00:00.000 --> 00:00.360]  Hi, everyone.
[00:00.600 --> 00:01.060]  Can you hear me?
[00:02.340 --> 00:02.780]  Okay.
[00:03.220 --> 00:04.100]  Naomi, how are you?
[00:04.100 --> 00:07.020]  Alright, I want to introduce these folks who work very hard to get here.
[00:09.240 --> 00:11.360]  We have Jesselyn Radack.
[00:11.420 --> 00:11.860]  Hi, Jesse.
[00:12.300 --> 00:13.760]  By video, via Skype.
[00:15.260 --> 00:16.540]  Glad you can be here virtually.
[00:17.500 --> 00:21.120]  We have Carey Shenkman and we have Naomi Colvin.
[00:21.840 --> 00:29.900]  And they're going to be talking about hypocrisy with our government, who is, you know, persecuting and prosecuting people for telling the truth.
[00:30.980 --> 00:36.780]  I mean, charging them with capital crimes like treason for telling the truth.
[00:37.000 --> 00:43.120]  Yet our own government just continuously leaks information for its own interests.
[00:43.640 --> 00:49.640]  We've seen this from the White House all the way down and various intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
[00:49.700 --> 00:51.140]  It's a very common problem.
[00:51.360 --> 00:52.960]  And there needs to be some more equity.
[00:53.100 --> 00:56.920]  So these people are going to talk about leak hypocrisy and what we can do about it.
[00:57.280 --> 00:57.860]  Thank you.
[01:04.560 --> 01:06.540]  Thank you so much, everyone.
[01:06.760 --> 01:12.460]  And it's really an honor for all of us to see such an interest and see such a packed room right now.
[01:12.780 --> 01:13.800]  I'm Carey Shenkman.
[01:14.160 --> 01:22.580]  I'm a First Amendment and Human Rights attorney representing journalists and doing freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and also state power cases.
[01:22.580 --> 01:26.840]  I work with the Center for Constitutional rights representing WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
[01:27.060 --> 01:29.900]  It's perhaps one of our most well-known cases.
[01:30.740 --> 01:33.960]  And these issues are very important to our office.
[01:34.280 --> 01:38.840]  And here with Naomi Colvin, if you wanted to introduce yourself briefly.
[01:39.140 --> 01:39.600]  Sure.
[01:39.840 --> 01:40.060]  Yes.
[01:40.200 --> 01:42.320]  I'm a campaigner for the Courage Foundation.
[01:42.320 --> 01:44.220]  We have a session tomorrow as well.
[01:44.540 --> 01:49.540]  And we run defense funds for a number of whistleblowers and Hacktivit.
[01:49.600 --> 01:54.780]  And I'm going to give sort of a quick view from Europe on some of these issues.
[01:55.520 --> 01:59.980]  So I think it would be most appropriate for Jesselyn to start out.
[02:00.080 --> 02:01.820]  I think she needs no introduction.
[02:01.820 --> 02:18.960]  But she's the legal director at Exposed Facts, is famous for representing many whistleblowers, was a whistleblower herself at the Justice Department, currently represents Edward Snowden, and is one of the most prominent voices defending whistleblowers and freedom of information.
[02:18.960 --> 02:23.400]  So Jesselyn, it's also an honor, a big honor, to be on this panel with you.
[02:23.920 --> 02:25.020]  Thank you for having me.
[02:25.140 --> 02:26.240]  It's an honor to be here.
[02:26.240 --> 02:27.700]  And I'm really glad you're doing this.
[02:31.000 --> 02:39.260]  Basically, you know, in my experience, we really do have a two-tiered system of justice.
[02:39.800 --> 02:45.360]  And high-level officials who leak for political gain get cover.
[02:45.360 --> 02:52.520]  And those blowing the whistle on crimes and abuse end up facing decades in prison.
[02:52.740 --> 02:55.120]  And this problem is urgent.
[02:55.500 --> 03:13.100]  It's costing the daily liberty of people like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and many whistleblowers who are really having their lives ruined, as well as the liberty of Julian Assange, a publisher.
[03:13.100 --> 03:18.180]  And it's very important that we address this.
[03:18.260 --> 03:39.720]  And the fact that there really needs to be some sort of public interest defense for people who are telling the truth, as opposed to people who are leaking purely to score political points or for their own personal reasons in leaks that have no public interest value whatsoever.
[03:42.810 --> 03:46.030]  So, Jesselyn, I'm curious what your experience has been.
[03:46.310 --> 03:52.070]  You mentioned public interest defense, but maybe not everyone in the audience knows what that means.
[03:52.610 --> 03:54.930]  How does the U.S.
[03:54.990 --> 03:59.330]  treat whistleblowers who publish in the public...
[04:00.490 --> 04:03.350]  Should I answer that, or should you?
[04:04.170 --> 04:07.970]  I probably should, but I'm not going to.
[04:08.510 --> 04:10.430]  I'm on with you, yeah.
[04:14.190 --> 04:19.030]  Basically, courts don't recognize a public interest defense.
[04:19.030 --> 04:25.690]  And, you know, that was abundantly clear in the court-martial of Chelsea Manning.
[04:26.010 --> 04:42.350]  Clearly, there would have been a public interest defense that you're leaking, not for political gain and not for personal reasons or to score political points, but because the public has the right to know and would benefit from this information.
[04:43.030 --> 04:51.090]  And there really needs to be that kind of defense, especially if you're going to be prosecuting people for something as serious as espionage.
[04:52.330 --> 04:58.210]  So, I'm interested, especially because you represent Edward Snowden, who's currently in exile in Russia.
[04:59.990 --> 05:10.250]  And John Kerry, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have made statements saying that he should come back and face trial.
[05:10.470 --> 05:18.430]  That, oh, if he's committed an act of conscience, part of that is facing justice and facing a judge.
[05:18.610 --> 05:21.750]  And I think Kerry also said that he should, quote, man up.
[05:22.490 --> 05:24.090]  What's your response to that?
[05:24.090 --> 05:30.750]  Why doesn't Ed just come back and sort this out in a U.S.
[05:30.850 --> 05:31.050]  court?
[05:31.930 --> 05:38.470]  Ed has said that he'd be happy to do that if he would be allowed to raise a public interest defense.
[05:38.690 --> 05:42.970]  That what he did was in the interest of the people.
[05:43.250 --> 05:44.670]  But the U.S.
[05:44.790 --> 05:52.730]  government has specifically said, including the political people you mentioned, that he would not be allowed to raise that.
[05:54.450 --> 06:08.710]  And I know that actually in an interview a few, just a few weeks ago, former Attorney General Eric Holder said that, said that Ed performed a public service through his disclosures and yet should still face trial.
[06:08.890 --> 06:09.810]  What do you, what do you make of that?
[06:09.930 --> 06:19.690]  Having the highest prosecutor or former highest prosecutor in the land saying your client has performed a public service, but still shouldn't get a public interest defense?
[06:20.490 --> 06:29.730]  Well, I'm glad that Eric Holder agrees with us that Ed performed an amazing public service and what he did.
[06:29.730 --> 06:41.310]  But I find that completely hypocritical and contradictory to say that he should therefore still not be entitled to some kind of public interest defense if what he did was of public benefit.
[06:41.310 --> 06:47.830]  It's sending a really mixed message to people about how you should behave as a citizen.
[06:48.850 --> 06:51.070]  I want to push a little bit more on that.
[06:51.210 --> 06:52.590]  Why would it be hypocritical?
[06:53.990 --> 07:10.830]  You know, well, I think it's hypocritical to say that someone performed a tremendous public service, but we are going to continue to try to punish them and go to the ends of the earth to get them and to hunt them and to make them pay for performing a public service.
[07:10.850 --> 07:12.790]  That's not normally how you thank people.
[07:13.030 --> 07:15.490]  Sometimes people get statues.
[07:15.830 --> 07:17.490]  Sometimes people get laws.
[07:20.390 --> 07:24.490]  people have things, you know, wonderful public things done in their names.
[07:24.710 --> 07:30.190]  But normally you're not told to come back and be thanked by facing jail.
[07:31.670 --> 07:42.350]  I recall, I live in New York, and for others who live here, I think maybe a year ago there was an art project to put up a bust of Edward Snowden in Brooklyn, and I think it was quickly taken down.
[07:43.130 --> 07:46.970]  So I think that's the closest attempt to a statue.
[07:47.170 --> 07:49.950]  I know that there have been monuments internationally, certainly.
[07:50.170 --> 07:59.730]  There's one that has three truth-tellers, Assange, Snowden, and Manning, on chairs.
[07:59.990 --> 08:11.990]  And then a fourth chair that's called Anything to Say, but it's quite a remarkable exhibit where basically a member of the public can go and just stand up on the fourth chair with these other truth-tellers.
[08:11.990 --> 08:22.770]  And the idea is that it's in a way that we often think that whistleblowers are exceptional, and these heroes that do something that's unattainable.
[08:22.930 --> 08:35.070]  But I think one of the points that you, Jesselyn, have made so strongly in your career is that it's really up to everyone, whether working within government or outside government, to speak up.
[08:35.070 --> 08:50.150]  Because there's so many people with clearances, there's so many people who are facing misconduct, or sorry, viewing and seeing misconduct abuses and cover-ups that have an obligation under the oaths they take for office.
[08:50.510 --> 09:06.730]  Not just under oaths in the Constitution, which is the law of the land to respect the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, but also human rights treaties, which are also the law of the land under the Constitution, and numerous conventions which make torture,
[09:06.950 --> 09:19.830]  for instance, a severe human rights violation, that when witnessing torture or cover-ups of torture, individuals have a duty under international law to report that so it can be prosecuted.
[09:19.830 --> 09:27.670]  So I think the big lesson from that is that, as a public, we all have a duty to stand up, and it's very possible.
[09:27.670 --> 09:31.470]  It's not unattainable for anyone.
[09:32.150 --> 09:35.710]  I was curious, Jesselyn, in terms of the next...
[09:35.710 --> 09:43.390]  Well, just to emphasize that point, I wanted to say, most people don't set out and say, wake up one morning and say, I'm going to be a whistleblower today.
[09:43.390 --> 09:57.690]  You know, most people are doing their jobs and trying to follow the rules, laws, rules, and regulations that they're working under, and then they find themselves crosswise with the government for doing that.
[09:57.690 --> 10:00.590]  But most people are not out to make waves.
[10:00.590 --> 10:02.930]  Most people are trying to serve the public.
[10:03.850 --> 10:04.490]  Right.
[10:04.790 --> 10:06.170]  And many, many...
[10:06.890 --> 10:21.430]  Much of the narrative is that low-level officials will get prosecuted for exposing misconduct, whereas so-called, like, protected or important officials are given protection.
[10:21.470 --> 10:26.770]  For the most part, that tends to be true, but it's not always the case that it's a high-level, low-level distinction.
[10:26.850 --> 10:46.650]  And in fact, some of the most prominent whistleblowers have been very, very high-level officials, like Thomas Drake, for instance, was a senior official at the NSA, Bill Binney, also a very senior official, who devoted their whole lives and careers to public service out of a sense of duty and patriotism.
[10:46.810 --> 10:54.810]  And they saw that the very systems that they had swore to protect were betraying the people that they had a duty towards.
[10:55.210 --> 10:58.270]  Because ultimately, the question is, where does that duty...
[10:58.270 --> 10:59.730]  Where does the duty to protect lie?
[10:59.910 --> 11:02.170]  What are secrets designed to protect?
[11:02.350 --> 11:06.090]  Are they designed to protect embarrassment, misconduct, or abuse?
[11:06.090 --> 11:08.030]  Are they designed to protect people?
[11:08.250 --> 11:10.810]  Are they designed to protect constitutional rights?
[11:11.150 --> 11:20.950]  And where those secrets are covering up violations of constitutional rights, that raises not just legal problems, but severe ethical and constitutional problems as well.
[11:21.710 --> 11:23.490]  No, I agree completely.
[11:24.030 --> 11:30.450]  And people blow the whistle because they do see violations of law, rules, and regulations.
[11:30.570 --> 11:34.390]  But I think they also have strong moral compunctions.
[11:34.390 --> 11:53.170]  And I would hate to think that employees feel like they should have to check those morals at the door and, you know, basically have their belief system be subservient to a government manager or someone in a position of power.
[12:00.710 --> 12:02.770]  Naomi, did you want to jump in?
[12:05.210 --> 12:15.950]  I know one of the things, because the Courage Foundation, which Naomi is a campaigner for, runs the official defense fund for Edward Snowden and has...
[12:18.780 --> 12:20.820]  You can bring them on as well.
[12:25.120 --> 12:30.140]  But runs the official defense fund for Edward Snowden and several truth-tellers.
[12:30.180 --> 12:43.620]  I mean, is committed to the legal defense of those who often are neglected and are faced with big legal battles and problems alone.
[12:43.900 --> 12:52.200]  And I'm curious to get your perspective in terms of Courage's kind of vision going forward and where...
[12:52.950 --> 12:59.380]  What kind of the maybe European and international perspective towards the U.S. is on some of these issues?
[12:59.380 --> 13:00.360]  Sure.
[13:00.620 --> 13:21.740]  I guess a lot of these cases which seem to be incredibly painfully controversial in the U.S., the view from Europe is, you know, much more straightforward and the injustice is much more obvious than sometimes seems to be evident from the debate that you see in the United States.
[13:24.460 --> 13:37.740]  I think it's implicit in what Courage does that by making it clear that there's a support net and a support net for individuals that's available and ready to step into action, you make it...
[13:38.680 --> 13:42.260]  I mean, you know, I'm not... I'm realistic about this.
[13:42.260 --> 13:47.420]  The barriers towards people, you know, against people making these disclosures are massive.
[13:47.640 --> 13:57.300]  The psychological barrier, the barrier towards, you know, being able to work, you know, what it does psychologically to you, what it does socially.
[13:57.620 --> 14:15.260]  But we hope that by making it clear there's an organization there which will fight your corner and fight your corner for individuals, which not many other people do, that it changes the calculus of can I act or can I not act, at least slightly.
[14:20.810 --> 14:39.810]  And Jesselyn, I know that you've actually led delegations to Europe, like you went with former Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and Thomas Drake and several whistleblowers, and you visited Adam Moscow and Julian and the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
[14:39.810 --> 14:44.730]  And so I feel like you got a chance to experience, like, the European Parliament.
[14:44.730 --> 14:59.650]  And there's actually been a lot of progression, like the European Parliament voted by a majority that Edward Snowden whistleblower should be granted protection and asylum should be respected.
[14:59.910 --> 15:14.770]  And I'm curious what your perceptions are if you've seen Europe to be more progressive on whistleblower issues or if you feel that right now we're kind of shifting into a darker time?
[15:15.770 --> 15:22.330]  I think overall we're shifting into a darker time, but Europe is certainly more progressive.
[15:22.730 --> 15:25.450]  And, I mean, they may have different words for it.
[15:25.450 --> 15:30.970]  Like in France, a whistleblower is a lancer de l'art, someone who sounds the alarm.
[15:31.410 --> 15:33.230]  But it's the same idea.
[15:34.250 --> 15:46.630]  So there's definitely an appreciation of it there, though, you know, in the grand scheme of things, I feel like it still has negative connotations that have to be overcome.
[15:48.150 --> 16:08.030]  So, many might know, Chelsea Manning filed an appeal in her court-martial in May challenging the draconian nature of her unprecedented sentence, which was 35 years in prison for disclosing nothing that was...
[16:12.240 --> 16:13.960]  Did we lose Jesselyn?
[16:14.640 --> 16:15.840]  Yeah, I'm a second.
[16:17.080 --> 16:18.320]  Hey Jess, can you hear me?
[16:24.000 --> 16:27.020]  Actually, maybe I'll continue and then we can...
[16:27.020 --> 16:28.280]  Stop turning my video off.
[16:28.400 --> 16:28.500]  No.
[16:29.000 --> 16:29.600]  Come back.
[16:37.060 --> 16:39.300]  Yeah, maybe we can get one of the sound folks up.
[16:39.780 --> 16:41.360]  I don't know why it keeps turning it off.
[16:41.680 --> 16:42.740]  If this doesn't...
[16:44.020 --> 16:44.980]  If this doesn't like...
[16:44.980 --> 16:47.920]  It shows she's offline, so maybe she got disconnected.
[16:56.590 --> 16:58.190]  We'll just try that one more time.
[17:01.130 --> 17:01.490]  That's...
[17:01.490 --> 17:02.150]  Am I recording?
[17:03.050 --> 17:03.950]  Or is this...
[17:03.950 --> 17:04.950]  What did I just hit?
[17:05.190 --> 17:05.670]  What am I doing?
[17:07.470 --> 17:08.390]  That's a video, right?
[17:08.490 --> 17:09.770]  That looks like a video call thing.
[17:10.870 --> 17:12.070]  Oh, that's a video message.
[17:12.270 --> 17:12.730]  That sounds...
[17:12.730 --> 17:13.070]  Okay, great.
[17:13.190 --> 17:14.210]  I'm in chat right now.
[17:14.250 --> 17:14.690]  What am I doing?
[17:16.290 --> 17:16.890]  That's a call.
[17:17.430 --> 17:17.790]  That's...
[17:18.890 --> 17:21.130]  This is what years of education does for you.
[17:22.510 --> 17:26.050]  I'll try that and kind of multitask a bit, but I'll continue in the meantime.
[17:26.050 --> 17:29.490]  And then maybe if somebody wants to come up and help.
[17:29.910 --> 17:33.470]  Otherwise, I'll just like paddle my feet and struggle up here.
[17:33.970 --> 17:37.170]  But so on that point of actually comparative defenses.
[17:37.510 --> 17:46.430]  So Chelsea Manning filed her appellate brief in May, which challenged the length of her detention.
[17:46.670 --> 17:47.170]  35 years.
[17:47.310 --> 17:48.090]  Unprecedented sentence.
[17:48.950 --> 17:52.850]  And numerous organizations actually filed supporting briefs in that case, which is very interesting.
[17:52.850 --> 17:55.130]  So there's a coalition of different human rights groups.
[17:55.610 --> 18:08.110]  So the EFF, for instance, filed a challenge to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is one statute that Manning was convicted under for the use of WGET, a batch downloading program, to access cables.
[18:08.310 --> 18:11.590]  She actually had access to the individual cables.
[18:11.890 --> 18:24.150]  And actually, an interesting academic question is whether that same theory that was used to prosecute Manning could have been used against Hillary Clinton for batch downloading materials that she had access to individually.
[18:25.270 --> 18:28.810]  But so the EFF filed an excellent brief challenging the CFAA.
[18:29.170 --> 18:33.530]  The ACLU took on the Espionage Act, arguing for a public interest defense.
[18:33.790 --> 18:41.590]  And another group, the Open Society Justice Initiative, filed a brief basically comparing the international law in many jurisdictions.
[18:41.590 --> 18:44.850]  And looking at essentially how the U.S.
[18:44.990 --> 18:50.910]  is way more draconian than just about any other civilized country in treatment of whistleblowers.
[18:51.170 --> 18:59.290]  So for instance, they looked at how whistleblowing or leaks of the press are punishable by less than five years imprisonment in at least 12 countries.
[18:59.550 --> 19:02.510]  And punished by at most 10 in most countries.
[19:02.510 --> 19:13.670]  And also, a number of jurisdictions, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, which is the highest human rights court in Europe, and a binding court over European countries, allows for a public interest defense.
[19:13.930 --> 19:23.850]  Which is, again, where a whistleblower will have an opportunity to present their motive and the fact that they're making disclosures in the public interest.
[19:24.050 --> 19:25.470]  Again, there's no chance...
[19:25.470 --> 19:26.430]  Are you in trouble with those here?
[19:26.590 --> 19:28.490]  Yeah, it looks like she's offline, actually.
[19:28.750 --> 19:29.430]  So I don't know.
[19:29.610 --> 19:31.010]  Maybe, let me try to...
[19:31.010 --> 19:32.090]  She ran away from you guys.
[19:32.510 --> 19:32.730]  I think...
[19:33.170 --> 19:34.610]  I can have that effect.
[19:40.950 --> 19:41.850]  Yeah, it showed off.
[19:42.210 --> 19:44.470]  I'm worried because the little dot was...
[19:44.470 --> 19:45.690]  It shows she's not on.
[19:45.790 --> 19:46.690]  Let me...
[19:47.410 --> 19:48.170]  Let's make sure.
[19:51.340 --> 19:53.480]  Yeah, Nate, maybe you can...
[19:53.480 --> 19:54.320]  Okay, great.
[19:54.900 --> 19:56.400]  Maybe if you could give her a call, too.
[19:57.620 --> 20:02.100]  But, so in the meantime, you know, it's really a problem.
[20:02.360 --> 20:05.700]  And Jesselyn is completely on point.
[20:05.700 --> 20:06.640]  And I think...
[20:06.640 --> 20:08.440]  And Naomi will speak more to this in a second.
[20:08.640 --> 20:11.680]  But, you know, the view isn't rosy anywhere.
[20:12.900 --> 20:15.740]  It is in Europe, especially with the financial whistleblower cases.
[20:16.280 --> 20:19.360]  But certainly, in the U.S., it's a lot worse.
[20:19.360 --> 20:38.200]  And I think one point I kind of wanted to end on was that when we talk about these whistleblower prosecutions in a two-tiered justice system, when we compare cases like Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus, you know, who essentially got a slap on the wrist for disclosing top secret and code word materials as pillow talk.
[20:38.880 --> 20:45.160]  And when you compare that to what happens to whistleblowers who act in public conscience, you do see a two-tiered injustice system.
[20:46.120 --> 20:49.460]  But it's not only about prosecutions of whistleblowers.
[20:49.560 --> 20:52.300]  And in fact, that's kind of a tip of a much larger iceberg.
[20:52.300 --> 21:00.860]  In fact, most of the censorship and repression is in secret because that's the most surreptitious and that's the most effective type of repression.
[21:01.200 --> 21:11.800]  So if we look at freedom of information kind of like a valve of information flowing, you know, from the government's perspective, that flow can be cut off at any point.
[21:12.000 --> 21:16.220]  So it could be cut off at a drawn-out public trial of a whistleblower.
[21:16.220 --> 21:25.720]  That could send a message, but it can also be cut off by draconian administrative policies and threatening and FBI visits that are much more difficult to report.
[21:25.940 --> 21:28.420]  It can be cut off at the publisher level.
[21:28.640 --> 21:30.840]  So the whistleblower can disclose all the materials.
[21:30.840 --> 21:34.460]  You can have all the technical protections and anonymity of whistleblowers.
[21:34.480 --> 21:40.920]  But the publisher can simply be afraid to publish because they're afraid of losing access or they're afraid of a criminal prosecution.
[21:40.920 --> 21:46.380]  So we saw that actually with the New York Times and waiting a year with the AT&T story years ago.
[21:46.860 --> 21:50.640]  And we also see that today when you look at how the mainstream media behaves.
[21:50.900 --> 21:58.480]  A lot of the reporting is actually dictated by fear of losing access to the king's or now maybe queen's court.
[21:58.980 --> 22:04.640]  So I think it's an important thing and what I'll leave on are some quotes from President Nixon.
[22:04.640 --> 22:17.080]  So in 1971, there's an often forgotten story, but they're essentially Nixon almost started World War III secretly because India and Pakistan broke out into a conflict.
[22:17.620 --> 22:29.140]  And the official policy was neutrality, but Nixon and Kissinger decided to have a secret tilt in favor of Pakistan and send a giant warship to the region to try to provoke Russia.
[22:29.140 --> 22:34.700]  And it actually almost started like literally was a flashpoint at the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
[22:35.100 --> 22:41.460]  A muck-breaking reporter by the name of Jack Anderson broke the story actually just days after.
[22:41.920 --> 22:45.480]  And he leaked a memo, an internal memo, just days after it was written.
[22:45.740 --> 22:50.740]  And Nixon and Kissinger were so absolutely furious that they wanted to go after the source of the story.
[22:50.860 --> 22:53.140]  The story actually ended up later winning the Pulitzer Prize.
[22:53.140 --> 23:00.020]  But the quotes of Nixon about this affair are publicly available in collections of his quotes.
[23:00.320 --> 23:04.200]  But this kind of gives a window into what going after whistleblowers is all about.
[23:04.660 --> 23:09.120]  So the first one is Nixon saying about the source.
[23:09.380 --> 23:20.700]  The point is, and this is Nixon, is there any way that we can keep Radford, the source, scared to death so that he doesn't get out and think, Oh, I'm now going to write the book or I'm going to do this or that or the other thing.
[23:21.100 --> 23:28.760]  Can he be told that a criminal, I think he's got to be told that a criminal offense hangs over him, that it's going to hang over him and that we're going to be, you see what I mean?
[23:28.980 --> 23:31.340]  I like to scare the son of a bitch to death.
[23:33.920 --> 23:35.840]  And another one that's perhaps even worse.
[23:36.580 --> 23:38.660]  He's speaking to John Ehrlichman, his counsel.
[23:39.120 --> 23:40.100]  So this is Nixon.
[23:40.440 --> 23:43.900]  We better do something with him, the source, but I don't know what the hell.
[23:43.900 --> 23:45.600]  Have you got any ideas?
[23:46.180 --> 23:49.580]  Ehrlichman replies, Yeah, but they're all illegal.
[23:51.900 --> 23:52.500]  Nixon.
[23:53.040 --> 23:54.120]  All of them illegal?
[23:54.520 --> 23:55.960]  Ha ha, that's good.
[23:58.900 --> 23:59.500]  Ehrlichman.
[23:59.860 --> 24:02.300]  Put him in a sack and drop him out of an airplane.
[24:04.960 --> 24:06.160]  That would do it.
[24:06.400 --> 24:07.940]  Yeah, replied the president.
[24:10.460 --> 24:12.240]  So on that note...
[24:13.060 --> 24:13.740]  Thanks a lot.
[24:14.520 --> 24:20.740]  I'll pass it over to Naomi to talk more about the financial whistleblowers.
[24:21.580 --> 24:21.980]  Sure.
[24:22.140 --> 24:23.480]  Can we make sure that we have her audio real quick?
[24:23.760 --> 24:24.200]  Oh, sure.
[24:24.380 --> 24:25.500]  Jesselyn, can you...
[24:25.500 --> 24:26.360]  Yeah, I can hear you.
[24:26.760 --> 24:27.160]  Great.
[24:27.440 --> 24:27.520]  Okay.
[24:30.260 --> 24:31.660]  Oh yeah, please don't leave.
[24:34.800 --> 24:38.600]  This is all very difficult to follow, so I'll try not to make too much of an idiot of myself.
[24:38.600 --> 24:47.560]  But I think it's worth pointing out that the situation in Europe, although definitely in some respects, is more positive than here.
[24:47.740 --> 24:53.720]  It's certainly the case that the EU has had quite a serious investigation into Edward Snowden's revelations.
[24:53.720 --> 24:56.820]  And Edward Snowden was able to present a statement to that.
[24:56.920 --> 24:58.460]  The Council of Europe have done the same.
[24:59.240 --> 25:07.560]  Germany has a very long-running investigation into NSA surveillance and German complicity with that now.
[25:07.640 --> 25:11.460]  And I think it's been going on for almost a year, if not longer.
[25:12.260 --> 25:22.340]  But at the same time, actually, if you look at whistleblower laws within the EU, Germany is really bad for domestic whistleblowers in the EU.
[25:22.460 --> 25:25.100]  It doesn't actually have proper whistleblower law at all.
[25:25.280 --> 25:28.360]  So the picture is very mixed.
[25:28.360 --> 25:39.720]  I just wanted to draw attention to one particular issue in Europe, which does impact some of the most, you know, big, important international disclosures that we've seen in the past few years.
[25:40.220 --> 25:43.300]  Particularly in the area of financial whistleblowing.
[25:43.740 --> 25:47.760]  Whistleblowing on corporate tax avoidance and tax havens.
[25:48.480 --> 25:52.300]  Public understanding of these issues has increased massively over the past five years.
[25:52.540 --> 25:55.320]  Social activism in this area has increased massively over the past five years.
[25:55.320 --> 25:57.980]  This would not have happened without reporting and whistleblowing.
[25:58.700 --> 26:02.080]  UK Uncut would not exist without the contribution of whistleblowers.
[26:02.200 --> 26:05.820]  There's absolutely no mistaking that at all.
[26:06.320 --> 26:20.200]  Within Europe, within particular countries in Europe, Luxembourg and Switzerland in particular, banking secrecy laws really serve to chill disclosures and punish whistleblowers.
[26:20.380 --> 26:28.820]  Some people in this room may be familiar with the case of Rudolf Elmer, who publicly gave information about the private bank Julius Baer to WikiLeaks.
[26:29.240 --> 26:35.400]  Rudolf Elmer has been persecuted, and there's no other word for it, persecuted relentlessly over the past five years.
[26:35.640 --> 26:42.180]  And, you know, I recommend you go and look up the details, because it's absolutely, absolutely incredible what's been going on.
[26:42.300 --> 26:44.960]  And I believe, you know, he's still under threat and it's still happening now.
[26:49.320 --> 26:56.360]  Obviously, Europe doesn't quite have the same problems with exemplary punishment that happens in the United States.
[26:56.620 --> 26:59.760]  But in some ways, the direction of travel is very worrying.
[27:00.140 --> 27:08.340]  And in my job with the Courage Foundation, this is something, you know, we are concerned about and we're tracking quite actively.
[27:08.340 --> 27:34.380]  One of the most interesting examples of leak hypocrisy I've seen recently, and actually it's reported in public in Private Eye, interesting British magazine, just last week, is PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountancy firm, saying that the LuxLeaks disclosures that the ITAJ gave worldwide attention to in 2004.
[27:34.380 --> 27:42.120]  This is the systematic exposure of tax avoidance that was happening via Luxembourg, saying that those disclosures were justified.
[27:42.380 --> 27:46.760]  And this is interesting, not because there's any real debate about whether these disclosures were justified or not.
[27:46.760 --> 27:49.900]  They resulted in multiple investigations.
[27:49.900 --> 28:00.340]  They almost caused the resignation of the president of the European Commission, who, as finance minister and then prime minister of Luxembourg, was directly responsible for a lot of this stuff.
[28:00.760 --> 28:09.080]  It's interesting because PricewaterhouseCoopers were, in turn, directly responsible for the prosecution of the two whistleblowers concerned.
[28:11.600 --> 28:15.980]  Antoine Del Torre, who came forward publicly, and another guy called Raphael Halle.
[28:15.980 --> 28:19.140]  And these, and they were seeking...
[28:19.140 --> 28:26.060]  So these two guys were prosecuted under banking secrecy laws and for theft in the Luxembourg court.
[28:26.180 --> 28:29.400]  They also tried to prosecute one of the journalists concerned.
[28:29.400 --> 28:30.640]  You might be interested to hear.
[28:30.880 --> 28:39.280]  The journalist was acquitted, but both Del Torre and Halle were given suspended sentences and fines.
[28:39.600 --> 28:42.220]  And that decision is being appealed now.
[28:42.220 --> 28:57.940]  But I bring this to your attention because the European Union has also just passed a trade secrets directive, which, in theory, obliges every member state of the European Union to pass similar laws, which would be applicable in a wider selection of cases.
[28:58.460 --> 29:05.700]  This is such a clear and present danger to press freedom in Europe that even the New York Times editorial board wrote an editorial saying so.
[29:05.700 --> 29:12.780]  So things in Europe are not totally rosy, and there are issues that we should all be keeping an eye on.
[29:16.820 --> 29:19.760]  I'm wondering if we should continue with the three of us.
[29:19.860 --> 29:24.320]  Or Jesselyn, since you're out for a bit, did you... I didn't want to cut you off.
[29:24.640 --> 29:27.720]  I just wanted to underline Naomi's point.
[29:27.720 --> 29:42.900]  If you look at whistleblower protections for bank whistleblowers in the U.S., like Dodd-Frank and Starbanks-Oxley, bank whistleblowers have far more protection than national security whistleblowers.
[29:42.900 --> 29:57.020]  And I would say that it's just as important to know if your airplane has not been properly inspected and might fall out of the sky, as it is to know if your, you know, if your account is being totally mishandled.
[29:57.520 --> 30:00.880]  And we really need to have parity in these kinds of laws.
[30:02.220 --> 30:04.440]  What do you think is the best way forward?
[30:04.940 --> 30:06.860]  Do you think that's in the courts?
[30:07.080 --> 30:08.880]  Do you think that's in Congress?
[30:09.120 --> 30:12.540]  Do you think that's at a grassroots level or at a high-up level?
[30:12.540 --> 30:19.960]  I mean, because you spent your career looking at these issues and I know that I've had, you know, so many different experiences.
[30:21.220 --> 30:24.160]  You know, I think it takes a multi-pronged approach.
[30:24.360 --> 30:39.720]  I mean, in Congress, unfortunately, what you end up with in the end is not what people are often seeking in the beginning, which can be really, you know, really positive reforms that get so watered down by the time they're passed as to be meaningless.
[30:40.480 --> 30:49.580]  Courts have, you know, had limited success, but the problem is that things can take years and years and years to unfold.
[30:49.960 --> 31:04.560]  And legislatively, again, you can have a really good law like the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, but then there's a big gaping loophole for national security and intelligence whistleblowers who get cut out of the protection.
[31:05.960 --> 31:13.660]  So, you know, there's not one ideal solution, but I think, you know, you have to take a multi-pronged approach and keep pushing on all these different fronts.
[31:13.660 --> 31:40.200]  And I know there's another element that I think tends to be kind of more psychological in a way, this idea of shooting the messenger, which is an idea that goes back as far as civilization, where oftentimes there's kind of a human tendency to want to punish or ostracize someone who speaks out because of institutional dynamics or secrecy,
[31:40.480 --> 31:41.820]  internal secrecy codes.
[31:41.820 --> 31:57.860]  I know this is something that Ellsberg has written a lot about, that organizations promote cultures of secrecy, and that keeping secrets ends up becoming a mark of worth to where losing a security clearance can almost become like losing one's identity and value.
[31:57.860 --> 32:13.680]  And I wonder, because you've had a lot of experience fighting stigma personally with your whistleblower experiences, but also in defending your clients, not just in the courts, but also in the press, because the press has a tendency to mount attacks on whistleblowers.
[32:13.680 --> 32:23.440]  And we've seen this very recently, and tragically with the case of Chelsea Manning, who her lawyers reported made an attempt on her own life.
[32:23.600 --> 32:33.860]  And that wasn't treated with any respect by the army, which actually leaked confidential medical information in a violation of HIPAA, it appears.
[32:33.860 --> 32:40.620]  So, and I mean, and this isn't the, you know, this isn't any exception, this is treatment, like she was subject to solitary confinement.
[32:40.900 --> 32:46.840]  And numerous whistleblower cases, like in Thomas Drake, there was mismanagement of evidence.
[32:47.280 --> 32:50.860]  And so many of these cases involved break-ins and violations of the law.
[32:50.860 --> 33:04.640]  So I wonder if maybe you can speak to this theme of stigma and if there's any way to promote and push back on this idea of a whistleblower as a traitor, which is tossed around.
[33:04.800 --> 33:10.920]  I know it came up actually, even in the introduction of this talk, this idea of the traitor.
[33:11.040 --> 33:12.100]  How do we push back on that?
[33:12.100 --> 33:26.500]  You know, I think it's, you know, you historically point out that whistleblowers throughout history have been seen as traitors, turncoats, and more recently are painted as terrorist sympathizers.
[33:26.520 --> 33:34.280]  And this is done to marginalize them, but also to try to minimize the importance of what they're revealing.
[33:34.280 --> 33:54.360]  And I think one of the best things to do is look back at historical examples and say, look at someone like Dan Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers, which now, 40 years later, we're comfortable saying, you know, this is something that is credited widely with helping end the Vietnam War.
[33:54.700 --> 34:01.880]  And we shouldn't have to wait 40 years before we're able to, you know, vindicate whistleblowers.
[34:01.880 --> 34:06.560]  Tom Drake has gotten quicker vindication, but still, it has eaten up.
[34:06.700 --> 34:13.040]  You know, this has eaten up more than a decade of his life dealing with this.
[34:13.280 --> 34:22.300]  And, you know, a speedy resolution would be preferable than having agencies drag this stuff out forever.
[34:23.080 --> 34:23.660]  Certainly.
[34:23.880 --> 34:44.980]  I mean, we know this through the WikiLeaks case and Julian, who's been subject to what the UN's highest authority on detention actually came out with a ruling months ago saying that his situation in the embassy is arbitrary detention and that it's illegal and that Sweden and the UK are violating international law.
[34:45.480 --> 34:57.000]  And neither state has agreed to abide by that opinion in a process that they chose to participate in and involving human rights machinery that both countries helped create.
[34:57.420 --> 35:05.340]  And this is, I mean, this is in the context of an ongoing, over five years now, investigation into WikiLeaks in the U.S.
[35:05.680 --> 35:13.180]  that's been unprecedented, pervasive, and included drag nets of associates and supporters of WikiLeaks, visitors to WikiLeaks.
[35:13.640 --> 35:21.080]  So we see this at every level, not just from the whistleblower, but also to the publisher facing censorship.
[35:21.080 --> 35:29.000]  That was the case going back to the Pentagon Papers trial, when the FBI would visit independent publishers who were thinking about publishing the Pentagon Papers.
[35:29.360 --> 35:37.660]  And there is a famous case involving the New York Times and the Washington Post, but in fact there's 17 newspapers that published excerpts from the Pentagon Papers.
[35:37.800 --> 35:47.040]  And actually Nixon administration tried to get gag orders against four of them to prevent them from publishing, except the information was spreading so fast that they just couldn't censor it anymore.
[35:47.040 --> 35:53.980]  So this, and then now, today, I mean, you have Obama saying things like, you know, whistleblowing today, it's not like Daniel Ellsberg.
[35:54.140 --> 35:54.920]  He's seen as a hero.
[35:55.100 --> 35:56.860]  He's, you know, he's the good whistleblower.
[35:57.320 --> 36:09.220]  And now you have these absurd, I mean, absurd hoops that officials jump through and commentators jump through to try to distinguish Dan Ellsberg from, like, Chelsea and Ed.
[36:09.220 --> 36:12.720]  And it's completely absurd because he publicly supports them.
[36:12.840 --> 36:15.680]  He actually says that he should have blown the whistle earlier.
[36:15.940 --> 36:21.920]  And he, you know, he's been at the Manning Court Martial and been very vocally supportive.
[36:22.160 --> 36:28.180]  So I think that really goes to light that there's so many inconsistencies with these cases.
[36:29.000 --> 36:32.260]  And I'm really glad you brought up that point, that last point especially.
[36:32.260 --> 36:35.600]  Should, um, do you think we should go to questions?
[36:36.140 --> 36:36.460]  Sure.
[36:36.720 --> 36:37.620]  What are you both thinking?
[36:38.660 --> 36:48.440]  Okay, yeah, should we, I guess there's a microphone if you have questions and then, um, we can try to answer them or you can direct them to one of us.
[36:51.340 --> 36:54.400]  I think, yeah, it would make the most sense to come up directly to the mic.
[36:55.360 --> 37:06.600]  Could someone comment a little further on this whole idea of the public interest defense and why it's not allowed under either federal law or the various state laws that might apply?
[37:09.160 --> 37:22.980]  It's just not recognized as part of the, I mean, if you look at the whistleblower protection laws, the Whistleblower Protection Act, Whistleblower Protection Advancement Act, um, there is just, there, it's not written into the law.
[37:23.200 --> 37:32.040]  It just says that a person may reveal information that he or she reasonably believes evidences, fraud, waste, abuse, illegality.
[37:32.260 --> 37:40.860]  But it doesn't say anything about what to do or what happens or what protection you're entitled to when the government does retaliate against you.
[37:41.040 --> 37:43.660]  So it's just not in there at all.
[37:43.660 --> 37:50.620]  Um, and that would be a great affirmative defense to, to have available, um, for a whistleblower.
[37:51.260 --> 37:58.300]  And also in, um, so, so the main law that's used to prosecute whistleblowers you might be familiar with is Espionage Act of 1917.
[37:58.300 --> 38:11.440]  It's a hundred years old and was passed by the Wilson administration, not to, um, not to prosecute spies, but the first few thousand prosecutions were actually of, of the Socialist Party and labor movements.
[38:11.440 --> 38:17.980]  Um, and that law is extremely vaguely written and, um, also provides no defense.
[38:17.980 --> 38:34.220]  And it's been interpreted, um, most often by the Eastern District of Virginia, where many of these, um, well, whistleblower cases are, are, are brought, um, where individuals don't have an opportunity to introduce evidence of, um, of, uh, positive motive,
[38:34.540 --> 38:36.140]  uh, of their acts.
[38:36.140 --> 38:48.580]  So in previous cases, like John Kiriakou's case, Thomas Drake's case, they, they actually tried, and, and the Manning court-martial tried to say, look at the, you know, look at these, like, look at these things that, bad things that were exposed.
[38:48.800 --> 38:52.480]  Um, but the judge will actually say, you can't, you can't introduce that.
[38:52.720 --> 38:58.600]  What makes it even worse is that, despite that, the government is allowed to introduce evidence of harm.
[38:58.600 --> 39:15.360]  So, in a way, effectively tainting the jury, um, and this happened in the Manning case, allowing speculative, speculative and attenuated, um, ideas of harm caused by disclosures without allowing the individual to defend against that.
[39:15.560 --> 39:22.340]  So I think the public interest defense is probably the, the most needed, um, most needed revision to the act.
[39:22.480 --> 39:28.500]  I mean, uh, I think most lawyers in the space, um, I'm sure Jesselyn would agree for, you know, the need to repeal.
[39:28.500 --> 39:33.540]  The Espionage Act is both outdated and draconian law that violates the First Amendment.
[39:33.820 --> 39:43.040]  But I think, um, realistically speaking, the public interest defense is probably the most important, is probably the most important, um, uh, thing that we need.
[39:43.720 --> 39:44.580]  I agree.
[39:44.740 --> 39:56.860]  It absolutely should make a difference whether you're leaking the score political points or retaliate or get revenge versus because there's information that the public needs to know and the public has a right to know.
[39:56.860 --> 39:59.820]  That's a huge distinction and it should matter.
[40:00.360 --> 40:04.980]  Um, and the fact that courts have been saying it doesn't, um, is very troubling.
[40:06.900 --> 40:11.220]  Okay, um, I'd like to return to the topic of whistleblowers and stigma.
[40:11.740 --> 40:21.080]  Um, I can understand that, um, a large corporation or a large government would be, would take offense to someone who made them look bad.
[40:21.080 --> 40:27.240]  Um, and they would retaliate by trying to make the person who made them look bad look bad or look worse.
[40:27.760 --> 40:31.460]  Um, so I, I think that's sort of an expected response.
[40:31.460 --> 40:41.020]  But one of the things that I'm wondering, I'd like to get your thoughts on, is during, with some of the leaks that have happened during the last few years.
[40:41.280 --> 40:50.960]  Uh, do you think that whistleblowing, at least among, you know, there's, it's seen, it's seen with some element of virtue or heroicness?
[40:53.630 --> 40:56.350]  I think it's always been a double-edged sword.
[40:56.710 --> 41:05.490]  Um, people vilify Dan Ellsberg, including Nixon, yeah, very publicly when, when he blew the whistle.
[41:05.750 --> 41:12.510]  But now, you know, many years later, he's, you know, he's seen as a hero that he is.
[41:12.710 --> 41:21.110]  Um, so I think there's always been this love-hate relationship with whistleblowers, um, that our country has.
[41:21.110 --> 41:39.090]  Um, we celebrate Erin Brockovich, but then, you know, we always, you know, every article about whistleblowers is normally, um, you know, has these undertones of, oh, they're off, they're weird, they don't go with the flow, they didn't fit in, they have an axe to grind,
[41:39.170 --> 41:44.850]  you know, and all these other, um, you know, gets into all these other mixed motives that they might have.
[41:45.830 --> 41:49.770]  I'd add to that that I, I agree totally with all of that.
[41:49.910 --> 42:04.270]  I think it's also worth recognising that what is sometimes a bit of a fake public debate about, you know, hero or traitor, is used deliberately in the media to crowd out discussion of the revelations themselves.
[42:04.270 --> 42:18.850]  Um, the University of Cardiff have done a survey of all of the British coverage of Edward Snowden's revelations and what they found is that particularly in the right-wing press, um, endless stories about, is he a hero, is he a traitor, you know, were used and that,
[42:19.570 --> 42:31.890]  if you like, spreads out and allocates, you know, and occupies all of the, you know, space in those particular newspapers that might actually be used to discussing the revelations themselves, which clearly the British government did not want to do at any level.
[42:32.010 --> 42:34.030]  So I think that's also worth bearing in mind.
[42:36.350 --> 42:46.410]  What do you think of the Guccifer 2, uh, leaks and the DNC leaks and the insinuation that this is an attempt by the Russian government to influence U.S.
[42:46.670 --> 42:46.970]  politics?
[42:47.190 --> 42:50.450]  Do you think this is yet another case of people in the U.S.
[42:50.570 --> 42:58.230]  trying to maintain power and stigmatise the whistleblowers who are acting in the public interest or that it is in fact Putin trying to influence the U.S.
[42:58.310 --> 42:59.110]  or something in between?
[43:03.770 --> 43:05.190]  Someone else want to take that?
[43:09.110 --> 43:21.110]  Well, I haven't had a chance to fully digest all the stories, so, um, I know that, with respect to WikiLeaks, it's WikiLeaks' position to, uh, not comment on any sources.
[43:24.030 --> 43:32.250]  Do you think Tor and anonymous browsing is going to make it easier for people to whistleblow without actually getting caught?
[43:33.990 --> 43:35.030]  Sorry, can you repeat that?
[43:35.130 --> 43:40.190]  Do you think that the Tor and the anonymous browsers will make it easier for people to whistleblow without being caught by the government?
[43:40.510 --> 43:43.390]  So they can verify the source is real, but they can't find out who did it?
[43:43.390 --> 43:47.130]  Do you want a Tor making it easier?
[43:47.710 --> 43:53.270]  Um, well, I, um, I think it already has, in some extent.
[43:53.410 --> 44:08.150]  Obviously, the risks, the risks are very great, and what we've seen particularly in, I mean, if you look at Chelsea Manning's case, it's not the initial, um, submission mechanism which causes issues.
[44:08.410 --> 44:09.050]  It's, um,
[44:12.280 --> 44:16.140]  it's a problem of, you know, who you, of, who someone's talked to.
[44:16.360 --> 44:22.510]  It's, the issue of not getting caught is bigger than, can you submit something from A to B anonymously?
[44:23.180 --> 44:26.060]  It's a bigger, it's a bigger and more complicated problem than that.
[44:26.860 --> 44:27.220]  Thank you.
[44:27.340 --> 44:32.600]  But anonymity is certainly an important factor in being able to blow the whistle successfully.
[44:33.320 --> 44:42.980]  Um, I tried to blow the whistle, um, anonymously, and then basically ended up getting outed by the government.
[44:43.460 --> 44:49.140]  Um, so, I mean, I, I do think anonymity is an important factor in being able to blow the whistle.
[44:49.320 --> 44:56.380]  It's certainly a valid way to blow the whistle, um, and affords a certain amount of protection and safety for that person taking the risk.
[45:01.490 --> 45:05.570]  I wanted to return to this very important issue with hypocrisy.
[45:05.570 --> 45:08.350]  Which is what this talk was titled on.
[45:08.630 --> 45:12.810]  In particular, around prosecutorial discretion.
[45:13.370 --> 45:21.350]  Because we've had in the United States a series of intelligence officials that have actively lied to Congress under public oath.
[45:21.350 --> 45:24.170]  And they have not been prosecuted.
[45:24.390 --> 45:45.510]  And I'm wondering if there's a structural mechanism within the Department of Justice, Jesselyn, where you worked, that we could use or advocate for that would hold senior officials accountable for lying to the public if we're gonna hold, um, people who've disclosed information in the public interest,
[45:45.730 --> 45:50.050]  like Edward Snowden, um, to this basically exile.
[45:50.050 --> 45:50.650]  Thank you.
[45:51.150 --> 46:01.650]  I mean, the proper mechanism would be to appoint a special prosecutor or independent counsel to look into these cases and investigate them.
[46:01.870 --> 46:10.370]  But, um, the Department has shown itself to be very, very poorly capable of investigating itself, unwilling and unable to do that.
[46:10.370 --> 46:13.190]  Um, so I just don't see that happening.
[46:15.810 --> 46:22.430]  I, uh, I found the discussion of different whistleblowing laws in different countries really fascinating.
[46:22.430 --> 46:29.630]  And I'm wondering if there are any other places we could look for inspiration maybe outside of Europe, outside of the United States.
[46:30.090 --> 46:34.090]  Does, does Canada, anywhere in Latin America, Japanese, anybody else?
[46:34.490 --> 46:41.130]  You know, especially maybe on the, either financial side or on the intelligence side, is there any other places we could look to inspiration to maybe get this stuff figured out better?
[46:42.150 --> 46:49.310]  Yeah, well, there, there are some other jurisdictions that have, um, that have public interest defenses of, of, of different forms.
[46:49.510 --> 46:54.470]  So you can imagine that sometimes there'll be national security exceptions carved out, which is less helpful.
[46:54.510 --> 47:01.350]  But I know, um, it's actually been some time since I've, I've done, um, done research on this.
[47:01.350 --> 47:07.890]  But, um, but Canada and Denmark, I believe, have explicit public interest defenses written into their laws.
[47:08.110 --> 47:21.630]  Like I said, the European Court of Human Rights has allowed, um, public interest, has looked to what's called a proportionality test under Article 10 of the European Convention, which is a free speech article, um, looking at, uh, so basically allowing the,
[47:21.630 --> 47:24.650]  the, uh, public interest to be considered.
[47:24.730 --> 47:26.270]  So that would apply to Europe.
[47:26.270 --> 47:36.070]  Um, and I know, I want to say, I, I want to say I saw something in Australia, but was less helpful because it had, I think it had a national security exception carved out.
[47:36.250 --> 47:45.850]  Um, but a number of other jurisdictions, if they don't have those defenses, they certainly are, um, not issuing as, um, as draconian sentences.
[47:45.910 --> 47:47.310]  And I, I think that's a very important point.
[47:47.410 --> 47:49.530]  I think there's a lot of guidance in international law.
[47:49.710 --> 47:56.170]  There's numerous organizations have produced principles, um, you know, articulating national security, uh, cases.
[47:56.270 --> 47:58.230]  And human rights law has actually been progressive.
[47:58.410 --> 48:01.310]  There's been a lot of work by civil society orgs on this.
[48:01.510 --> 48:04.170]  Um, and other of you, last?
[48:04.870 --> 48:10.230]  Um, no, I mean, um, there's a group called Blueprint, Blueprint for Free Speech.
[48:10.230 --> 48:15.010]  We've been doing comparative work on whistleblower laws within the G20, which is really, which is really interesting.
[48:15.170 --> 48:18.970]  But yeah, it's taking bits from different jurisdictions.
[48:19.010 --> 48:27.850]  I don't think anyone has a complete, you know, there's no one country that you would recommend as having, you know, a great set of laws for whistleblowers generally, I don't think.
[48:29.510 --> 48:32.330]  Jess, we are running out of time, but if you just wanted to say...
[48:32.330 --> 48:43.510]  Yeah, I don't think there's one to like, oh, this person, you know, this country has the ideal model law that, that we should, um, pattern off of.
[48:43.510 --> 48:56.850]  Um, but I think you can take bits and pieces from what other countries are doing and say, look, okay, this, this should be a good principle to follow, or they're doing the right thing in terms of recognizing this aspect of it.
[48:57.570 --> 48:58.110]  Awesome.
[48:58.530 --> 49:02.700]  Looks like we're, we're out of time, but thank you so much, Jesselyn and Naomi for...
[49:03.030 --> 49:03.610]  Thank you.
[49:08.180 --> 49:09.400]  Thank you, Jesse.
[49:09.940 --> 49:10.480]  Thank you.