Scrooge would be proud

Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.

(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).

The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.

Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.

The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.

There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?

The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.

I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.