On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

Do you have any evidence at all for this claim: "Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency"

Fair enough. As the comment below points out, more likely she had in mind the idea of personally ruining him, as she has tried to do (and partially succeeded) to at least one other person in the past.

It's hard to draw the line though: "needy Latinos", that environmentalists should "get a life", the sneering comments about Catholics, the constant chummy relations with the media and a reporter leaking info "because I have become a hack"? The insults towards various specific activists and groups, a D-list "journalist" like Budowsky openly saying he'd trojan horse the Bernie supporters?

Could this have been done better? Perhaps. We don't know the details of when Assange got this information, what opportunities he might have had to filter it through MSM outlets with the resources to handle it and release it before voting (which has already begun).

The fact is, quite a lot in there is in the public interest to know, and especially for someone like Tanden I have little sympathy for her shit-talking being made public, after she's attacked others for less.

I agree in principal but in practice how do you decide what to include and what not to include. I respect that wikileaks has a rigorous criteria despite having the flaws you point out. If you can think of a well defined way to incorporate the common sense concept of respecting Joe Public's personal space I'd be all for it.

>While Lessig is gracious here, I don't have to be.

You don't have to be, but it might have been a good idea to do so given there's always the chance one is missing a bit of history, like you (and some of the other comments in this thread) are demonstrating here. The post-hoc heroification of Lessig is somewhat sickening on a technical forum given how badly he blew it Eldred vs. Ashcroft with exactly the sort of Mr. Smug Constitutionalist Professor attitude that the Podesta email called out. The result of that case was a huge blow, maybe the only best chance there was to at least prevent flagrant, retroactive infinite extensions of copyright, to help in some way protect Public Domain, and despite direct hints from the justices he just refused to engage in practical core economic arguments in favor of academic scholarship. This was obvious to everyone with a smidgen of legal knowledge following along at the time, and for that it was obvious to him too in retrospect. Read his own analysis from Legal Affairs, "How I Lost the Big One" [1]. His summary sentence says it all really: "When Eric Eldred's crusade to save the public domain reached the Supreme Court, it needed the help of a lawyer, not a scholar."

It's directly apropos here because yeah, Lessig is a good writer. And he can definitely do the whole humble/gracious thing alright. But that's cold god damned comfort to the hundreds of millions who lost out due to his total fuck up. I have not forgotten nor forgiven it. I'm glad he's gone on to try to do other good things, and people like him have a valuable role in debate. But the real world of politics and power is not a classroom debate, and people like him do not belong anywhere near a position of importance that requires direct interaction, understanding, and manipulation of the filthy realities upon which good must build.

The email might have been "rude" (and I use scare quotes because I don't consider privately using strong language in a bit of venting that you have the self-control not to make public rude), but it was also strongly rooted in fact. His presidential campaign was flat out disgusting, built on an utter lie (I cannot believe Lessig of all people doesn't understand the separation of powers) and flagrant irresponsibility over the lives of billions of people, because that responsibility is part of what it means to be President of the United States of America. He said he was running for real back then, he raised money, and I think anyone who does that should be serious about going all the way in case their super long shot somehow manages to catch a wave of cultural zeitgeist and work against all odds. I would have been delighted if he or anyone else had made a true comprehensive technology cored platform and ran with it, treating the entire thing with the seriousness and practicality it deserves, but he did not.

I will always admire many of his ideas and how he's helped a generation of minds think in new ways. But when it comes to politics his approach can get stuffed, and he clearly did not learn from one of the great blunder in technological law precedent of the last few decades.

1. http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_le...