4.2.12 WC: 191694 the leaked documents speak for themselves. He allowed the chips to fall where they may and they often fall on the head of the current office holders around the world. Prosecuting Wikileaks or its founder for “the crime” of publishing classified information, while at the same time rewarding -- with prizes, access, interviews, and status — “reputable” journalists and newspapers for doing essentially the same thing, would constitute selective prosecution. American law, as distinguished for example from German law, generally permits selective prosecution of criminals, on the ground that resources are limited and prosecutors must have some discretion in deciding how to expend their limited resources. In order to “get the most bang for the buck”, prosecutors are generally free to pick and choose among the many who violate broad, open-ended and often vague criminal statutes, such as tax, regulatory and criminal negligence laws. They are not free to exercise this discretion in a partisan manner: going after members of the opposing political party. Nor can they properly do so on the basis of race, religion or other protected categories. But they may select for prosecution the most visible or notorious offenders, since such prosecutions are likely to have the greatest deterrent effect on other potential law violators. For example, Leona Helmsley, one of the most famous women in America, was indicted for tax evasion on April 15™! One area in which it is dangerous and wrong to permit selective prosecution is the publication of classified information by the media. If the government can pick and choose the few it decides to prosecute among the many who publish classified information, it will have far too much power over the content of what the media reports.** The First Amendment recognizes no distinction between the patriotic and unpatriotic, the responsible and irresponsible, the favorable or unfavorable, media. It was precisely these improper distinctions tha