What happens after Snowden?

Once again, press freedoms are coming under fire as government officials cite national security as the reasoning for the questioning. The Guardian’s top editor testified before U.K. Parliament about publishing files obtained from Edward Snowden about surveillance.

The New York Times lead with a quote about intimidation:

The top editor of the British newspaper The Guardian told Parliament on Tuesday that since it obtained explosive documents on government surveillance from a former National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden, it has met with government agencies in Britain and the United States more than 100 times and been subjected to measures “designed to intimidate.”

 The editor, Alan Rusbridger, said the measures “include prior restraint,” as well as visits by officials to his office, the destruction of Guardian computer disks using power tools and repeated calls from lawmakers “asking police to prosecute” The Guardian for disclosing the classified material in news articles.

Mr. Rusbridger was testifying before a Parliamentary committee looking into national security matters. He faced aggressive questioning from lawmakers, particularly those of the ruling Conservative party. Some asserted that The Guardian had handled the material irresponsibly, putting it at risk of interception by hostile governments and others. Others said that the paper had jeopardized national security.

At one point during the hearing, to his evident surprise, Mr. Rusbridger was asked whether he loved his country. He answered in the affirmative, noting that he valued its democracy and free press.

He also said The Guardian would “not be put off by intimidation” but would also not act recklessly.

Following Mr. Rusbridger in front of the committee, a senior British police officer, Cressida Dick, refused to rule out prosecutions as part of an investigation into the matter.

The Washington Post story began with paraphrasing Rusbridger defending press freedom:

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on Tuesday vigorously defended his decision to publish a series of articles based on the secret files of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, telling a parliamentary committee hearing that the right to continue pursuing the story goes to the heart of press freedoms and democracy in Britain.

Rusbridger also told lawmakers that the Guardian had thus far published only 1 percent of the roughly 58,000 Snowden files it had received.

“I would not expect us to be publishing a huge amount more,” he said.

The hearing on the Guardian’s handling of intelligence data leaked by Snowden, now living in self-imposed exile in Moscow, drew the attention of free-speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic. Rusbridger faced more than an hour of questioning by Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee on counterterrorism, testifying in an occasionally combative public grilling of both the Guardian and its editor.

Along with The Washington Post, the Guardian — a London-based news outlet with a print circulation under 200,000 but online readers numbering in the many millions — was the first to publish reports based on the Snowden leaks. In response, British authorities have acted far more aggressively than U.S. or other European officials, launching what Rusbridger and international free-speech advocates have decried as a campaign of “intimidation” against the paper. Actions taken so far include the coerced destruction of Snowden data being held at the Guardian’s London headquarters and public denunciations by Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as the decision to summon Rusbridger for questioning by lawmakers on Tuesday.

The Reuters headline and top talked about how journalists may face charges for reporting on the documents:

British police are examining whether Guardian newspaper staff should be investigated for terrorism offenses over their handling of data leaked by Edward Snowden, Britain’s senior counter-terrorism officer said on Tuesday.

The disclosure came after Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, summoned to give evidence at a parliamentary inquiry, was accused by lawmakers of helping terrorists by making top secret information public and sharing it with other news organizations.

The Guardian was among several newspapers which published leaks from U.S. spy agency contractor Snowden about mass surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s eavesdropping agency GCHQ.

Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, who heads London’s Specialist Operations unit, told lawmakers the police were looking to see whether any offenses had been committed, following the brief detention in August of a man carrying data on behalf of a Guardian journalist.

Security officials have said Snowden’s data included details of British spies and its disclosure would put lives at risk. Rusbridger told the committee his paper had withheld that information from publication.

“It appears possible once we look at the material that some people may have committed offenses,” Dick said. “We need to establish whether they have or they haven’t.”

While not necessarily a business story, the issue should cause every journalist to wince in fear. It seems the news organization didn’t obtain the documents under false pretenses. But publishing information about the military and law enforcement could get the journalists in trouble. It’s a sticky question, but the world needs a free press in order to check abuses of power, seemingly exactly what happened here. Everyone involved with the media should be paying attention when the U.S. and the U.K. start trying to curb press freedoms.