This article discusses an Icelandic legislation which is aimed at increasing protection for sources and whistle-blowers, imposing stricter limits on prior restraint, strengthening process protection and barriers on “libel tourism” and reinventing the Icelandic Freedom of Information Act. The movement has been led by WikiLeaks. The article analyses the consequences of this legislation.

This article contains excerpts of an interview with Julian Assange. In this interview, Assange expresses his view on the change in the nature of journalism, the importance of exposing facts and protection of the sources.

This article discusses the provisions of the latest legislation for the protection of whistleblowers. It conducts a comparison between the new legislation and the previous legislation. The author goes on to state that mere passing of a new legislation is not sufficient- there is a need to conduct effective public inquiries into the alleged scandals. The author concludes by stating that there is a need to end the culture of silence that exists in the present scenario.

This article discusses the cases of eminent whistleblowers- Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and David Miranda. The author analyses why Manning was given such a harsh sentence. Particularly, the author raises a valid question- why a whistleblower was given 35 years when the offenders whose wrongs she disclosed are still unprosecuted, and even feted as hero war veterans.

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism faculty and officers tell President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that “while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment” and that “as a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.”